Ripon College Days

Ever since American forces entered Iraq just over two years ago (and, indeed, in the months leading up to the conflict) George Bush has become an object of hatred for many on the left. You can barely claim membership in the Democratic Party if you have not publicly and maliciously attacked the President on some grounds-not matter how spurious. During the last campaign, in a trend started by Howard Dean, the Democratic frontrunners were tripping over themselves to call George Bush a bigger liar than the last guy. A few more benign Democrats preferred to remind us that George Bush, like Bill Clinton before him, had merely failed to tell the whole truth. The administration simply crafted facts to fit their theory that Iraq should be invaded while ignoring any facts that might have run contrary to that. Now don't misunderstand me, George Bush is a public figure and thus the public has every right to criticize him how they might choose. The War in Iraq, although I believe it was both necessary and just, was not carried out perfectly and there were certainly times when the President should have been more forthcoming. What really shocks me though, is the audacity of the Democrats, in their efforts to discredit George Bush, to fall into the same habits they accuse the President of using.

Recently Hurricane Katrina horrified our country-it wasn't just the damage and the death or even the sight of huddled, fleeing masses-rather it was that such a tragedy was allowed to happen here. Immediately the cry went up...George Bush did it. Confound it, the environmentalist scream, if he had just made SUV's illegal like he should have then Global Warming wouldn't be a reality right now and these massive hurricanes wouldn't be spinning across our seas. If he hadn't invaded Iraq then the National Guard would have been here sooner. He should have had FEMA ready from the get go, he should have visited New Orleans sooner, he should have, he should have...Comments about what George Bush "should have" done far outweighed similar questions about the mayor of New Orleans or the governor of Louisiana should have done and in some circles they were as numerous as pleas for help for the victims. (Don't believe me...check out Kayne West's asinine comments about big, bad "racist" Bush at a fundraiser for the hurricane.) Now, when George Bush campaigned in part on his leadership after September 11th he was accused of politicizing a tragedy, but now it's suddenly okay, while people were still dying to politicize this tragedy without even offering alternatives. George Bush has publicly taken some of the blame for the insufficient relief efforts...where are the similar mea culpa's from Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco?

Further Democratic hypocrisies emerge when examining the recent hoopla around the confirmation of John Roberts. Even if we ignore the contradiction between what Republicans expected of Ruth Bader-Ginsburg in her questioning twelve years ago and what Democrats demanded of Roberts, the process still bears the stench of hateful politics. During the election, the Swift Boat for Truth ads were vilified as misleading and vile. Now, liberal organizations feel free to link Roberts to abortion clinic bombers in ads. (In fairness, they were LATER pulled.) Theresa Heinz and her connections to George Soros, was supposed to be off limits, but Jane Roberts' involvement in Feminists for Life was a topic that the media had to know everything about. (I do commend Ted Kennedy for his vocal opposition to any such inquiries.) Even his family's adoption records were being examined by certain groups for a time, looking for something, anything to discredit a man who is universally regarded as brilliant and at least by those who know him, as fair. It is with great hesitation that I defer anything to Hilary Clinton, but this reeks of a vast left-wing conspiracy. The debate over Roberts largely centers on judicial philosophy. The "living Constitution" favored by most Democrats, is too often a ploy to make judicial decisions that reflect personal beliefs. Perhaps then it should be no surprise that the Democrats are using similar tactics in their politics.

In his last article, my colleague Joe Fontaine argued that Democrats need to step up and be a real opposition party. I think they've got the opposition part down. (Any mention of George Bush means attack, attack, and attack some more.) I would love to see the same dedication to working towards a solution, on anything-when that occurs the nation will certainly be much better off. Any fair and reasonable person can see the merits of having at least two political parties, but that system only works when both parties put forth ideas for solutions. When it comes to political tactics the Democrats too often seem to be trying to have their cake and eat it too-all without bringing forth a recipe. I hope the Democrats do turn it around at least enough so that they can stand on ideas rather than flail with attacks. Until that happens though, I will be forced to believe, that the Democratic Party, at least on a national scale, will pick political methods purely on the basis of the what is convenient and popular. If the Democrats continue their current method of operation, expect the President's approval rating to climb once again as the Democrats double-speak and hypocrisies are blown away like so many wind-surfers.

Article Tools